2. As we look at fractures within the Diocese, with whom do we need to be reconciled?

3. Why as a group do we think that we should be dong this work? If not, why not?

4. What do we need to move this forward? Knowledge? Skills? Capacity?

5. Who needs to know?

Political correctness in the US has become a form of policing that immobilizes conversation because we are afraid we are gong to get it wrong from the perspective of either the left or the right. We need to make space for people who may genuinely have a difference of opinion from us.

What was the process like for you discussing these five questions?

Report back from group discussions:

A.

1. mutual success, joint flourishing, harmonious relationships. This does not always mean we have agreement.

2. When a lot of parishes hear reconciliation, they year First Nations.

We need to talk about how broad reconciliation can be. It is a huge circle. Depending on the skills and tools you have, you may build different things. It’s not about trying to get it all done. We are talking here about a massive circle.

4. We do this work of reconciliation because it is the biblical mandate. We do it because living in healthy relationship simply feels good.

5. this is very case specific.We keep talking about First Nations as if they are one homogeneous group; they are not.

1. need to be the restoration of love for God, other self in trusting, safe context. Image of music – different notes fit together in harmony. Recognize there still may be discord but we can move forward together.

3. = a Gospel imperative, because we are created to be in loving relationship and we damage ourselves when we are not

4. need the will that is generated by trust which comes from knowledge and from the space for genuine conversation

5. we all need to hear

C.

1. isn’t an objective. It is something that happens when other things are in place.

2. anyone who is our neighbour

3. it is our baptismal imperative

D.

1. look in our context. Each parish has to work at this in its own place.

5. Bishop needs to articulate clearly at every level that this is not just about First Nations

E.

1. can only be defined as we begin to enter the process. It is always context specific.

2. there are many issues on the table: sexual misconduct, schism, closed churches, failed amalgamations, Diocesan Office, ANIC, young clergy

3. each parish needs to decide for itself where it needs to work on reconciliation in its own particular context and needs to feel that its process is valid even if it is not exactly the same as someone else’s

Implicit in everything I have heard is the awareness that a season of reconciliation isn’t just about one issue. Perhaps we need to explicitly challenge each parish to ask – where do you need to be working on reconciliation in your parish life?

We need to give permission to every parish to seek where they need to be working for reconciliation rather than making some parishes feel invalid simply because they do not feel particularly called to First Nations reconciliation.

There is general agreement that we see the importance of reconciliation. But we need to be able to shape the program contextually. For some their context may make sense to be working on First Nations reconciliation, but not for everyone in every context.

Bishop – thank you for taking the time and doing this significant work. I am very encouraged.

For you, deep stillness of the silent inland For you, deep blue of the desert skies For you, flame red of the rocks and stones For you, sweet water from hidden springs.

From the edges seek the heartlands and when you’re burnt by the journey may the cool winds of the hovering Spirit soothe and replenish you.